The financial crisis made clear that interconnectedness and complexity have the potential to magnify localized shocks and amplify and transmit them to the greater financial system. Understanding the risks posed by our ever more interconnected global financial system is crucial to managing those risks.
In a nearly four-hour hearing held on December 8, 2015, members of the House Financial Services Committee grilled the heads of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), accusing the FSOC of a poor transparency and lack of responsiveness to legislators’ requests for information. Led by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the House Financial Services Committee heard testimony from eight of the ten FSOC members, including the heads of the SEC, CFTC, FDIC, OCC and the FHFA. The Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chair did not testify.
Rep. Hensarling, in both his opening remarks and in questioning, faulted the FSOC on what he termed a lack of transparency, noting that two-thirds of the FSOC’s meetings were conducted behind closed doors and disclosures about the meetings were almost devoid of details. According to Rep. Hensarling: “FSOC has earned bipartisan condemnation for its lack of transparency. Two-thirds of its proceedings are conducted in private. Minutes of those meetings are devoid of any useful substantive information on what was discussed.”
In a preview of FINRA’s 2016 letter on regulatory priorities and emerging risks, FINRA’s CEO, Richard Ketchum said that FINRA’s exam focus in the upcoming year will be on three key issues: outsourcing, cyber risk and liquidity concerns. Ketcham also said that FINRA will repeat “some version” of its liquidity stress tests in 2016, further indicating that these stress tests will be an ongoing focus of FINRA.
The Fed, Financial Stability Board, and the Bank for International Settlements have beein quite busy this summer, and each issued rules or consultations in July furthering Basel III initiatives. On July 1, the Basel Committee issued a consultative document on its review of the credit valuation adjustment risk framework; on July 2, the FSB launched a peer review on the implementation of its policy framework for financial stability risks posed by non-bank financial entities other than money market funds (i.e., shadow banks”); and on July 20, the Fed finalized its capital surcharge rule for the eight US global systemically important banks (G-SIBs).
In a speech in July before at the Money Markets Liaison Committee in London, Chris Salmon, Executive Director, Markets, Bank of England hinted that the Bank of England was exploring means by which it could accept equities as collateral for its market operations, should the need arise. Although short on details, Mr. Salmon said that removing roadblcoks to accepting equities as collateral would bolster the bank’s flexibility in times of stress as well as in normal market conditions.
“At present, the Bank accepts a very broad range of collateral, including government bonds, asset backed securities and pools of ‘raw’ loans. But the Bank can further bolster its flexibility by removing any technical obstacles to accepting equities as collateral, should the need arise.”
While short on details, Mr. Salmon did indicate that the regulatory and other work necessary to facilitate the Bank’s acceptance of equities as collateral would take place through the balance of 2015 and well into 2016.
Since the liquidity freeze during the financial crisis, liquidity risk management has been a concern to regulators thorughout the financial industry. Last week, the the SEC proposed new rules addressing liquidity management in open end funds and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority issued guidance regarding effective liquidity management at broker-dealers.
PWC has published an August 2015 study commissioned by The Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) and the Institute for International Finance (IIF) intended to examine the post-crisis state of global financial market liquidity. Among its findings, the study...
The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced that it will hold hearings on December 11 to “consider whether to propose a new rule and amendments to certain proposed forms related to the use of derivatives by registered investment companies and business development companies.” This move is not unexpected as the SEC has long been concerned with how funds’ use of derivatives might affect compliance with leverage restrictions, and raise issues with fund portfolio diversification, concentration, and valuation. In 2011, the SEC issued a concept release seeking input on these very issues.
On October 7, 2015, the Office of Financial Research (OFR) published a paper highlighting the difficulties in interpreting the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), a new standard set by bank regulators after the financial crisis to help ensure banks maintain sufficient liquid assets during times of market stress. The OFR’s analysis of the LCR is part of its ongoing work monitoring the effects of changes in U.S. bank capital and liquidity regulations.
On July 21, 2015, following a long five-year proposal and comment period, the collection of restrictions imposed by Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations thereunder (commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule”) finally went into effect. The aim of the rule is to stop US banks and their global affiliates from engaging in unecessarily risky speculation and head off myriad conflicts of interest arising from proprietary trading and from investment relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds. While this may sound simple enough, even after the lengthy consideration of the rule, it is almost entirely unclear how the Volcker Rule will be enforced and by whom. Adding to the uncertaintly, because the final text of the Volcker Rule leaves so many interpretive questions remaining, it is almost impossible for banks to know if they are completely in compliance with the rule.